His strategy was perfect. He had to get top spot to move on and he knew all the other players wouldn't jeopardize their tournament just to call him and knock him out. He took the blinds and won some big hands and controlled the table from then on. Luck's always a factor, but sometimes you have to take the risk and just go for it. And that's why Gus Hansen is Gus Hansen.
I understand that but at the same time if another player picks up a big pocket pair and knocks him out then he looks like an idiot. Luck did play a factor on this table, but I still admire his "ballsy" aggressive strategy.
***** The point I'm trying to get across is that for the situation he was in, he had a perfect strategy. Obviously going all in every hand is a losing strategy, and once it got down to three of course you see Gus change his style, because at that point he had accomplished what he wanted (built huge chip lead, got table respect, controlled the table etc...). The reason it was perfect is because he got inside the minds of the other players (who didn't want to throw away their tournament to a wild showdown with Gus), and half of poker is being able to win those mind games. He got really lucky which I mentioned, but poker isn't all about odds and numbers, it's about playing the other people across from you, and in that respect Gus played the round perfectly.
This was sound play by Gus, actually. Weird rules. But with Gus not caring about anything but 1st place, and most players **not** caring about first place (only that they didn't finish last or second to last, etc) ... this made sense form a game theory point. He'd never do that in a cash game.
Not really though. Phil already placed, so he was just playing for chips, in which AJs is a monster in the dark. Playing to place is totally different. The small edge would be an disaster. You need at least aces to call there, and probably even fold pocket aces. If you keep folding, in this format, you WILL place, as opposed to playing monster hands and still losing 20% of the time.
Its funny that once it was clear that Gus was no longer going all-in on every blind that the other players continued to play like he was. Everyone was still either going all-in or folding on their blinds with no betting on the flop, the turn or the river.
The key is what Hellmuth said: "He went all in against the one guy who could afford to call him". Hellmuth was already qualified, so he was only playing for bonus points. Gus just got ridiculously lucky that he got a blind full house.
gus seemed like he wasnt really gonna put up with going about this slowly. He wanted to get ahead early and then play the system or just get eliminated and call it a day...
Don't forget they're playing a turbo structure where the starting stack is 15bb. Thus going all in every hand isn't such a crazy strategy. In fact given how guys played back then. I'm willing to bet moving all in with any 2 cards in a blind vs blind situation is mathematically the correct play vs Helmuth. Given people tended to call with way too tight a range back then. Gus just got unlucky he ran into a premium hand.
i like phil hellmuth and respect him as one of the greatest by far.. but watching his face when gus flopped the set was fucnin priceless... lmao i keep rewinding and lookin at him just pissed off
Cara Institute of Advanced Hypnosis It will work until you have luck and your oponents are weak but if you go against a shark and run out of luck you will get robed!
12:50 - Can't believe Esfandiari folded A8s on the button in that spot. Deeb and Ivey were really the only ones at the table who couldn't play a hand due to needing to fold their way into the next round.
this is fkin gold. back in the days, when nobody knew really about how to play poker and it had this mysterious vibes of these oldschool pros how loved to gamble. nowadays maths killed the vibes out of poker. everybody plays solid no gambling and no charisma out there.
Funny you say that, there's a poker AI called Pluribus that uses statistics and neural networks to make decisions. It can bluff, detect bluffs, set traps, and it's most iconic move is the ALL IN. It beat professional players in a long tournament, then they played again with the same hands (for example one pro would have the hand that the AI had) and then it would still finish first. According to it's own evaluation, the AI played 798% BETTER than the professional player.
@@felixs6318 Because the bot evaluates with statistics and because of it's understanding of it, it makes way more aggressive and bluffing plays than humans would. It has no fear, just logically analizes the odds and considers that it's a good idea to bluff (it does so wayy more than humans). Therefore it's not the maths that made poker boring, it's the lack of a deeper understanding of maths.
I still laughting at Phil when the lady ask him... Phil... Gus goes all - in in the dark? he nailed you! xD hahahahaha I spit water drinking xD He almost cry and laught at the same time... xD
This was sound play by Gus, actually. Weird rules. But with Gus not caring about anything but 1st place, and most players **not** caring about first place (only that they didn't finish last or second to last, etc) ... this made sense form a game theory point. He'd never do that in a cash game.
he had to win, so its all or nothing. he knew all of them were going to wait for players to bust. he just needed to get it all in until 3 players were left and then he starts playing. not running hot, just knowing what all the other players were after.
Hands up if you’ve lost to someone playing online doing exactly that, over and over and over, with 72os, 94os, etc etc etc. Absolutely scandalous the way some people play 😂 We’ve all lost to em haven’t we?
I don't even notice Phils when he rants, it's just a part of the game. Freddy Deeb though, the few times I've seen him on tv, he's acted like a nutcase.
